Tourneys
Topic: GB9 Midlands Classic

boxbreak would be better

I agree Andy i think it would make the break not so predictable.

I think tapped tables and breaking from the side is fine for 2 main reasons.

1. the amount of matches that have to be played and the time it takes to rack (for some players) tapped tables make it so much quicker

2. people who have been practicing breaking from the side for years will lose the edge they gain from their solid controlled break...yes i know everyone makes the wing ball no matter what, a better break still makes you more favourite to have a nice run out on

a break box would make no difference as long as the tables are still tapped, only that you would have to cut the 1 ball slightly to make the wing ball every time.... no point.

breakbox would make big difference!

also i was very surprised with main event prize fund breakdown it just doesnt make any sense to me

last 32 £100 x16 =£1600
last 16 £150 x8 = £1200
qf £200        x4= £800
sf £300        x2 =£600
runner up £600 x1 =£600
winner £1200    x1=£1200

i feel the qf and sf are not getting a fair percentage of prize fund i was very surprised with prize breakdown

a fair way and better break down in my opinion would be

last 32 £75 x16 =£1200
last 16 £125 x8 =£1000
q-final £250 x4 =£1000
s-final £450 x2 =£900
r-up    £700 x1 =£700
winner £1200 x1 =£1200    

whats everyone else think? and riggers?gb tour board?!

think the above what i suggested is very fair all round! plus we have the amatuer event and pro event which i think the prize money is scaled down good but the main event really puzzled me .

views pls?

I thought Lee wanted all views on the tour to be sent direct to the GB9 ball tour site and emailed? We must not go down the route of negative chat as I for one have seen on here how quickly the chat can turn from discussion to all out rows within a few replies....

Or am I wrong?

Phil....just wanting the tour to be a TOTAL success

Chat about the tour on here is fine and to be welcomed. The only thing we insist is dealt with in private is criticism (or any negative comment of any description) of hosts and sponsors.

Daz,

The idea of using break box just in the pro event had been discussed a lot in the run up to the season starting and, as you know it was something I was in favour of at the time. However, after some very long discussions the tour committee eventually voted against it and I believe that was the right decision. The main reasons were:
1. Wanted to have same rule in all 3 tournaments and felt break box not way to go for main and challenge.
2. Wanted to make pro division qualification an incentive for all challenge division players, and incentive may be reduced if a few pros with great breaks win all the time.

Raj reopened the debate in Solihull by seeking the backing of pros to a change to break box (and 9 on the spot was also discussed). A few people who signed his petition did come to me afterwards and say they thought more about it and wished they hadn't signed, which meant the number in favour of such a change was somewhere around the 50% mark at best. However, the debate has been reopened and is up for discussion at our next meeting which should be before Croydon or possibly at Croydon.

Regarding prize breakdown... That prize breakdown has been published on the site for months and I'm surprised no one has commented on it before now. I agree that your suggested breakdown is a more typical distribution. The reason we went slightly differently was to try and increase the last 32 payout to £100, which would cover the weekend's expenses for most people and be appealing to a lot more players. So when working out the payouts rather than start at the top and work down until we ran out of money we started with £100 for last 32 and worked our way up. The quarters and semis suffered a little so we could stretch out the top prizes. That's the thinking behind it but your suggestion will also be discussed and considered at the next meeting.

One thing we need to be careful of though... these suggested changes are BIG changes and pretty fundamentally different to the offering people signed up for and paid a years membership for so we have to be very careful about making such drastic changes mid-season. That can only really be justified if we are sure there is a very strong majority in favour, otherwise big changes need to wait until the next season. Even when considering changes to the pro event we have to consider the views of challenge division players too because they are subsidising it and many of them have joined GB9 with pro division qualification as their major incentive.

I'll watch the debate unfold with interest but won't be able to respond to all posts so I hope everyone doesn't feel we are ignoring them

ANDY RODDICKS SERVE IS TOO GOOD SO LETS MOVE THE BASE LINE ON THE TENNIS COURT

It is good to have open debate on the topics discussed above.

However (and I do not play on the tour!) I think it would be fundamentally wrong to make changes to a tour midseason, I think for the tour to maintain what has been a very successful start it is important to remain open and transparent but also that any major changes are not made mid-season regardless of the backing of a majority.

I am assuming that the tour will have an AGM and that every member will have a vote - this is the time to discuss and act upon fundamental changes.

I also have to ask that if certain players had reached a final would they be questioning the lack of a breakbox? Afterall it is alternate break and it is not like anyone is able to string 5-6 racks together which is when I think a breakbox is required.

Lee and the team keep up the impressive start and lets keep the criticism constructive!

I for one like Riggers reasoning on the prize breakdown, it rewards those of us that getting into the last 32 of the main event is a big achievement for.

I also think it is only natural for those that are used to and expect to make the latter stages to want a more conventional split of the money. I honestly think the majority will want to leave things as they are though.

yeah fair enough regards to changes mid season!

and i suppose its my own fault on prize breakdown for not seeing it earlier before event one!

but like i said just doesnt make sense especially as the amatuers have there own event too and pros have a pro event just think it should be distributed fairly for each round you make money!

When we change this for next season I don't want to be raising the quarters, semis and runner up at the expense of any of the other positions - I want to be able to increase the whole prize fund as we expect to be much better off financially as a tour from season 2 onwards.

i can definatly see your point on the prize breakdow darren, but, being a player who lost my first round match in Solihull, i personally like that way that they are also encouraging players who would not be up there challenging for the highest of finishes, to come and have a go because you will be paid prize money if you can win a few matches.

I completely agree with not making any major changes during the mid-season as, like Riggers said, it would be unfair to make such big changes when players already know what they signed up for.

I am no means critisising anybody's views on this subject, just putting forward my own.

I think the first event went superb and even though i only had a few games, i really enjoyed myself, and at the end of the day thats what this tour needs, as well as competitivness, is for people to enjoy themselves and think that they will be in with a chance.

Hopefully this will raise the bar of UK 9 ball.

Ads.....just my two pennies worth

My suggestion for what its worth is for a players meeting to be staged sometime after half way so that a few more tournaments can be played before changes are suggested.

Changes could be discussed at the meeting and then voted on and put into place before season 2.

At the end of the day the first event was great and it can only get better. But you have to remember this is a new tour and to get everything perfect from day one would have been a miracle.

Also remember that us humans are a fickle species and it is almost impossible to please everyone.

I agree that the prize money is not done the same way as snooker or other sports, but the idea of the tour was to get people interested and by weighting the earlier rounds I think this has been achieved.

The prize money is not something that many would consider a factor for entering as none of us will be able to give up work and live off GB 9 winnings. Even if Imran wins every Pro and Main event he'll pocket around £13k which you then need to deduct travel and accommodation expenses from.

From my point of view winning £450 or £300 by being beaten in the Semi of the Main is not gonna make a massive difference to me,

Hopefully in the future with outside Sponsorship the money may change.

Just my opinion though.

I think I can speak as a challenge tour member who is still learning the game and getting used to playing tournaments again after many years away from it.

The tour simply must look after the challenge players, there is a viable incentive to get to the last 32 and win back your accomodation money, or last 16 and win back your total expenses. Never forget half the field is out after round one. The players who lose in both first rounds in the first three events simply won't be in love with the idea of travelling 300 miles to have to win 4 matches to get paid adequately, and whilst all will still turn up, when it comes to renewing the tour money at the end of the season serious questions will be asked at that point.

The problem with previous tours is that the top lads used to show up to every event and if you showed up to every event over the two year period no matter how bad you were you would accrue enough ranking points to be ranked around 40th in the country. This ruins things, this tour is approaching it right by keeping everyone attending every event. Being kind to all members is critical to the tours longevity, and kind distribution of monies throughout the event is key to this.

Regarding a break box - look at the B & R stats for the tournament, no one was running every rack they broke. E.G. Andrew Richardson is ranked 13th and broke and ran once in 34 racks won and still did really well, so the tapped rack is not causing more run outs than you would expect at pro level.

mal its still massive advantage to break because ur guaranteed a ball 99% of time which means you have control table dont need to run out everytime,one good safety which happens alot then you back at table and run out just as good as break and run! so dont read into stats too much, am sure andy wasnt writing his break and runs down as i see him break and run few times ! but toi have control at table after break is big advantage!

I appreciate that Daz but my point is you are getting to the table then at least you have a shot at getting control of the table depending on your play.

For sure Andy is an excellent player and don't think for a second that I am saying he was in some way lucky because he did not break and run a great deal!! Merely players will get chances and its up to you!

I played badly and yet still had run out chances. I'm not sure I would have felt better or worse if my opponent had broke and run all his racks. But yes its an advantage, the winner breaks format particularly. I'm glad its alternate break though I must admit.

yes agree!

On 2008-02-13 21:30 , mal_clarke Wrote:

I'm a challenge player and if I lost in the first round in both tournaments at the first 3 events then I'd take this that I'm not good enough to be on the tour. At the end of the day, no-one stopped me from paying my money to get on the tour so it's my responsibility. If I'm too rubbish then too bad.

If this bad form continued to the end of the season then I wouldn't have enough ranking points to stay on the tour anyway.

I imagine there will be a few players who find they can't compete and wouldn't like to stay on the tour, even if they are out of the bottom 24 and 'safe'. I think the GB9 guys will need to have a think about this..

Supposing I finish 24th bottom yet the 25th bottom player dropped out. Would I take his place? (I think this should be the case), or would I still have to enter qualifying which would now be for 25 places? What if more players drop out who are 'safe'?

Also, I don't think there is anything wrong with the break rule or prize fund distribution. If you're good enough to break and run out every time (because that's what you practice) then fair play.

Good Post Machine Gun

I think what Mal is trying to say is that if a player goes into the 4th event, after losing all his first round matches in the previous three. He/she only has to win a small number of games to get good prize money, regardless of previous results, this then means that there is always something to aim for, for the players who dont regularly make top 16 ect